The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Closing for a second time as it's now an obvious Keep, I probably shouldn't of closed it the first time but whatever it's been reopened and relisted and nothing's changed consensus wise so pointless dragging the AFD on again so just gonna reclose it. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 ^Talk 11:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Whataboutism

Whataboutism (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on non-notable neologism that appears to be created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. The term itself was made up by The Economist journalist in 2006 and have barely been used ever since. As google search and google trends indicate some usage of the neologism begun in 2014 way after creation of this article. I myself discovered this article when it was linked in political discussion where one of the sides was accused of "whataboutism". It describes Tu quoque fallacy, neutral article for which already exists. The difference with this article is that this one has heavy anti-Russian bias and inherently non-NPOV. Niyaro ( talk) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. First this is a suspicious WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT nomination by a suspicious account with just a few edits (some of them several years old). Second, article is fairly well sourced and there's plenty evidence for its notability. The term is frequently used in media and also in academic work [1]. The article on the tu quoque is about the fallacy in general, this is about a particular manifestation. Hence the scope is different. There's nothing "anti-Russian" about this article and this assertion really just reveals the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality of the nominator. Neither is the article non-NPOV.  Volunteer Marek  05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I've never talked with you and I believe I've never encountered you as well, so I don't understand what warrants such accusations. How about you keep it civil instead of accusing me of committing wikipedia sins for no reason whatsoever? On topic, search for Google Scholar doesn't support your claim that it's in frequent use, quite opposite — there are about ten articles most of which around one year old. Accusing somebody of using logical fallacy and more over accusing somebody of being propaganda has very clear negative connotations. This term was specifically coined to discredit points made by Soviet Union and Russia by accusing them of being fallacious and this is what gives this neologism clear anti-Russian bias. The scope of this article is different from tu quoque only in the sense that it single outs Russia as a user of this logical fallacy (which is obviously used by everyone) and creates a new term for this. If one tries to remove anti-russian bias and bring cases of other people/countries doing the same, then the article scope will be literally the same as tu quoque one. That's why it's inherently non-NPOV. And all of this is really secondary to the fact that this is nothing else but a neologism and wikipedia has strict rules against them which this article doesn't meet. Niyaro ( talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - well-sourced article on this phrase with a variety of commentary from different perspectives. Contrary to the nominator, I have only encountered it used outside of Wikipedia. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 ( talk) 09:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Like I said, I've encountered it outside of Wikipedia as well in a discussion very similar to this one: link, and this is exactly what rule on neologisms means when it says "an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term". Statistics from google trends for "whataboutism" also don't have anything on a time before creation of this article — first query was made in 'march 2014' Niyaro ( talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see that there's evidence that Wikipedia is being used to drive the term's acceptance - the driving force seems to be coming from outside, in the articles sited. Yes, it is the same as Tu quoque - but as Whataboutism is now a commonly used name for Tu quoque, this is a case for merging with Whataboutism, not for deleting it. If you feel the tone is anti-Russian, then please go ahead and edit to make it more balanced. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 ( talk) 04:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - As noted by others, this is well sourced, and as a child of the Cold War born a bit before JFK became president I can assure you the sources are correct, this was a much used Soviet tactic, in those cases only incidentally "Russian" since many of the most prominent Soviets were Russian (but not, for example, Stalin), and then there's the "Kremlin's useful idiots" Lucas encountered in London, plus many, many others nowadays who frequently use this rhetorical tactic. Hga ( talk) 10:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The issue isn't about tactic. Everybody uses this rhetorical tactic once in a while. There's already an article about it called tu quoque. The issue is about this new neologism "whataboutism" and wikipedia's rules clearly state: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term" and as far I can see all the sources merely use the term or explain the meaning of it rather than being about the term. Niyaro ( talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep, easily able to find literally hundreds of scholarly academic sources, within seconds. — Cirt ( talk) 05:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Google scholar gives 12 results, and of those that I've checked one was an anonymous comment on the website and the other one actually stated that the term was coined by The Economist journalist. So can you please provide an actual example of those hundreds of scholarly academic sources that you have found and how you found them? My results so far clearly show that this neologism is not notable and not in a frequent use. Furthermore I couldn't find a single work that is about neologism itself other than simply crediting word to The Economist author. Niyaro ( talk) 06:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No, contrary to the claim by Niyaro, this term appears in a large number of sources - see Google news, for example [2]. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Google News search includes results from journalists' blogs as well as anonymous commentaries left on news websites, therefore Google News search is not reliable evidence for word's notability, especially considering that the word was made up by one of the journalists. Furthermore, in the rule on neologisms, which is very short and conscious and is linked several times in this discussion, is stated that: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". You need sources that establish word's notability as well as sources that are about the word itself. Compare with article on another neologism — Truthiness. It has plenty of reliable sources that clearly state that the word is notable as well as plenty of secondary sources that are about the word itself (articles that describe word's backstory, it's spread in usage, rise in popularity and so forth). The only thing Whataboutism article has on the neologism itself is a statement that it was made up by Edward Lucas (based on article written by Edward Lucas), while the rest is all about tu quoque rhetorical technique as used by Soviets and Russians and not the word itself at all. Niyaro ( talk) 04:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

No, there are multiple RS specifically about whataboutism, such as here. This page can be better sourced? Yes, sure. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Closure comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nom wasn't happy and to be totally honest some of the Keeps are weak so to save everyones time being wasted at DRV I'm just reopening & relisting. – Davey2010 ^Talk 15:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep - for sure. Not only does it have very solid sources in English, it is also covered in the Russian-language press [3], [4]. —Мандичка ^YO 😜 18:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Ample coverage in reliable sources. A recent example: [5] from The Washington Post, which discusses whataboutism in the context of modern American controversies. This source is already in the article, and there are many others like this on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.